So much fun discussion! Did I miss any routing test users chiming in that the new routing code does a much better job of using mH and primary street, using speed data rather than pruning based only on road type?

sketch wrote:I tried all the examples from [url=https://www.waze.com/livemap/?zoom=15&lat=45.78328&lon=-108.50068&from_lat=44.08054&from_lon=-103.23101&to_lat=45.78329&to_lon=-108.50069]this post plus the route from Rapid City, SD to Billings, MT with the routing test, but all the results were the same in every case.

Yeah, that's disappointing. Did you include this example in the routing test feedback thread?

My main problem with typing by naming (i.e. US-## must be typed X) is that those roads (both US-## & SR-##) can vary from one lane in each direction with stop signs to 2-3 lanes each direction with traffic lights to full blown limited access highways... Each of those are drastically different types of road.

russblau wrote:The references to "county routes" are useless in Virginia, since we don't have them, and in most counties literally every street, from the eight-lane arterials down to the 200-foot dead end around the corner from my house, has a "secondary state highway" number that is absolutely meaningless in terms of Waze's mapping needs.

Same goes for Connecticut - no County Roads. There is also an entire series of unsigned state route numbers in CT as well - basically everything from CT-400 & up... I've been slowly removing references to those (almost all alt-names) as I've come across them. For more info on the unsigned road network in CT, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_State_Routes_in_Connecticut

nhanway wrote:@Sketch: I am an active editor in Washington. The states standard is to type roads according to the FC Map. I have outlined the standards in Washington's Wiki Page. Seattle also uses the FC map. One thing I have noticed is WSDOT's FC map changes some roads class when they go from Urban Area to Rural Area and Vice versa.

I can't find the legend/key for the WSDOT FC Map, do they different types between Urban and Rural areas? In 2009 US DOT removed the urban/rural split and simplified things. The only thing that didn't line up was there was only one type of "Urban Collector" and there were "Rural Major Collector" & "Rural Minor Collector". "Urban Collector" & "Rural Major Collector" became "Major Collector".

In Connecticut, the most likely change at an Urban/Rural border was a "Principal Arterial - Other" changing to a "Minor Arterial". In our first version of the translation, we actually traced the route back to urban areas on both ends & if it changed back we kept it the same. The version that was proposed last year, changed the default type of "Minor Arterial", but we haven't implemented it yet because we are waiting for feedback from Ehud.

banished wrote:Out-of-area editor: "It's a primary street according to FC."Local editor: "No, it's a minor highway. I know, because I drive it frequently."

Sorry, but in this case the state's DOT wins.

I'd be uncertain about accepting poor routing as the result of a strict adherence to FC (or any other methodology, including the one used in the Southeast) as "winning."

The way I see it, in this case, the local editor needs to justify their position. Something to the effect of "It's a minor highway because it connects between X & Y, both FC minor highways, has the same lane configuration as both of them & the same speed limits as well". That shows very similar Functional Properties of the road & is a justification for an upgrade.

banished wrote:

bgodette wrote:

banished wrote:Florida doesn't even have a web-based FC map.

Yes it does. It's here and it's been in the Wiki for a while. However that site does not appear to work from IP addresses that GeoIP from out of state. Last time it worked for me was when I was there last December. F.I.T. may also have GIS resources usable with ArcGIS.

It doesn't work in-state, either, so effectively there is not a Florida FC reference we could use. (EDIT: Site page is responding sporadically, now.) I wrote the DOT yesterday requesting a URL for Florida’s FC system. The read receipt came back today. Standing by for a response and will advise all if I get one.

I just got it to load in one click up here in CT... and it seems to be responding to the menu selections & zooming, etc... The legend indicates they are still using the Pre-2009 urban/rural split types.

Thank you, Sketch, for the effort invested in this. At present, I am an FC holdout for three reasons:

1. Ehud said, “Please, don’t do that,” after Andy’s FC briefing at the last NA Meetup. 2. I look at the areas where FC is in use, and do not see any reduction in “Wrong driving direction” URs compared to where FC is not in use.3. It is a workaround to get Waze to do what it should do inherently. Road type should not be a routing factor per this post https://www.waze.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=212&t=48543. Is not a claim of FC that road type does impact routing?

Never-the-less, FC mostly aligns with what I requested AL, FL, and GA editors do, which is:

This does not impact routing any more – or less – than FC as far as I can tell, but has the advantage of being concise. For my experience, I wish Waze would just adopt Google’s routing engine and be done with it, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion.

1. I remain in the minority on FC, not because I wouldn't like to see a national standard, but assuming Waze says OK to FC, this thread shows we continue to struggle with exceptions. Where there are exceptions, we will continue to have back & forth conflicts between editors.

Out-of-area editor: "It's a primary street according to FC."Local editor: "No, it's a minor highway. I know, because I drive it frequently."

Local editors will constantly have to go back and 'fix' what an outside-the-area editor changed. Reading the previous posts, there's other subjective areas, too.

2. So while I am looking for ways to support FC (it sounds like I'll have to), FC seems to be a baseline at best, with each state having it's own exception list. It is not the holy grail of routing (see point 4, below), nor is the simple method I encourage Southeast editors to use, which is US = major, State Hwy/Rte/Rd (or SR) = minor highway, and Co Rte/Rd (or CR) = primary. It's just simpler and eliminates the local vs. out-of-area editor disagreements.

3. Florida doesn't even have a web-based FC map. Referring to earlier posts that some states do not have county roads, agreed there can't be a carte blanche rule that county roads are Primary Streets, but those states have equivalent road types no matter what they are called. It's just a matter of categorizing them into Primary or Minor and that is what FC is supposed to help with as I understand it.

4. I experimented with changing a road type in Alabama on a route I frequent -- a 4-lane, 65mph rural state highway from minor to major to see if would help routing -- and it did. The problem is the change was not supported by adherence to Alabama's functional classification system (which varies by county...argh!), but by my personal knowledge. That's not good. I would say Alabama's FC maps are wrong, but another editor would come along and "fix" those roads so that they align with Alabama's FC maps and we'd be right back where we started.

5. FC will require more attention be paid newer editors to help them be successful.

banished wrote:Out-of-area editor: "It's a primary street according to FC."Local editor: "No, it's a minor highway. I know, because I drive it frequently."

Sorry, but in this case the state's DOT wins.

I'd be uncertain about accepting poor routing as the result of a strict adherence to FC (or any other methodology, including the one used in the Southeast) as "winning."

bgodette wrote:

banished wrote:Florida doesn't even have a web-based FC map.

Yes it does. It's here and it's been in the Wiki for a while. However that site does not appear to work from IP addresses that GeoIP from out of state. Last time it worked for me was when I was there last December. F.I.T. may also have GIS resources usable with ArcGIS.

It doesn't work in-state, either, so effectively there is not a Florida FC reference we could use. (EDIT: Site page is responding sporadically, now.) I wrote the DOT yesterday requesting a URL for Florida’s FC system. The read receipt came back today. Standing by for a response and will advise all if I get one.

I'm in a relatively rural area where long-distance routing over primary streets, minor highways and major highways is the norm.

Regardless, the consensus appears we’re going ahead with FC and debate is over. I've had opportunity to make my points.

[EDIT: Response received from FL DOT for functional classification:http://www3.dot.state.fl.us/EnterpriseI ... sets/IMAP/• 6:00am to 9:00pm Monday - Friday • 7:00am to 7:00pm Saturday • Not available on Sundays Must have been written by a U. of Florida or FL State undergrad. It's awful.]

After dropping out of this discussion several pages ago, I researched FC in Florida and Alabama, and modified one county to see what would happen to the existing routing aligned under KISS. To revisit KISS again:

US – major state – minor county (or equivalent) – primary

Aligning with FC broke the ideal routing from the Florida Gulf Coast to Montgomery, AL. By “ideal routing” I mean:

a. What I know to be true since this is where I live b. What Google Maps says is the best routing – which happens to align exactly with a.

More about this in a minute.

KISS, though easier to understand and it brings consistency to editing, isn’t perfect, either. (Yes, I, a KISS supporter, said that.) The rural south has county roads that are dirt. Red clay, washboard, sticks to everything, dirt. Are they primary segments as aligned under KISS? (Don’t answer that!) An “unpaved” check-box might be helpful in these situations, but there’s little sense in talking about options we don’t have. Never-the-less, I have seen darn few long-distance routing error reports under the KISS methodology.

But wanting to be a team player, I continued with FC study since it seems the direction we are headed. I found places where roads should be upgraded from their FC classification – as described in sketch’s FC-hybrid proposal.

There are segments that should not be upgraded from pure FC. One such road in my region is US-90 across north Florida parallel to I-10. Florida rates it a minor arterial (mH)…and it really is given I-10’s close proximity.

====================================================

So, what I have gotten out of the discussion is this:

- No one outside of Waze knows enough to state confidently when Waze uses speed data (average & current) or segment type, or a hybrid. We don’t know the proprietary algorithms/data so struggle to inform our thought processes based on personal experience; experience which lacks consistency from one editor to the next seemingly based on their location. In short, we are trying to determine how to apply segment types around inconsistencies or expectations of Waze’s routing. We don't know what we don't know.

- We seem to have confidence in speed data informing Waze’s routing results in metro and on more heavily traveled routes

- We seem to have limited confidence in speed data – or even its availability – to inform Waze's routing results elsewhere (e.g., off-the-interstate rural routes). In those areas:

- The effects of FC-hybrid on routing in metro and rural areas are not reliably comparable and should not influence any decision on what methodology to use

- Under FC-hybrid, road segments can be upgraded from pure FC, but not downgraded

- Under FC-pure, a lot of current road segments would be downgraded

========================================

What I think to be true:

- What to with dirt roads, even if they are county roads, is clearer in FC-hybrid than KISS

- Both KISS and FC-hybrid can be -– and one or the other should be -– applied nationally and reduce disputes over segment types; yes, I know not every place has county roads, but they do have functional (ha!) equivalents

- Use caution with any rule set that necessitates numerous exceptions; when exceptions outnumber the rules, then the rules were faulty to begin with

=========================================

Lastly, neither KISS nor FC (hybrid or pure) work for the best route from the Florida Gulf Coast to Montgomery, AL. There’s a 20-mile stretch of 4-lane, 65mph (75+ on good day!) Alabama state highway in the middle of nowhere rated as “rural minor arterial,” mH. For routing to work (yes, I have experimented), it has to be MH, which means the FC would have to be “rural principal arterial” for me to legitimately change it to MH. (Google Maps gets this routing right.) I changed it back to mH even though the reality is MH.

So whether KISS or FC-hybrid, I expect national consistency from any GPS product. Waze used to be focused on the local commuter, but now they have matured so a national standard is needed. Given a choice between exceptions or standardization, I choose standardization and accepting that road segments may not always be represented by their ideal classification or produce Google Map quality routing.

By the way, please keep the current (larger) font size. You young’uns will understand someday.